Gamble et al v. Minnesota State-Operated Services et al
Filing
52
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS denying without prejudice 8 Motion for Class Certification Pursuant to Rule 23 filed by Clarence Antonia Washington, Jerrad William Wailand, Cyrus Patrick Gladden, II, David James Jannetta, David Le Roy Gamble, Jr. (Written Opinion). Signed by Chief Judge John R. Tunheim on January 10, 2017. (HAZ)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
DAVID LE ROY GAMBLE, JR. et al,
Civil No. 16-2720 (JRT/KMM)
Plaintiffs,
v.
MINNESOTA STATE-OPERATED
SERVICES, et al,
ORDER ON REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
Defendants.
David Le Roy Gamble, Jr., St. Peter Regional Treatment Center, 100 Freeman
Drive, St. Peter, MN 56082, plaintiff pro se
Cyrus Patrick Gladden, II, MSOP, 1111 Highway 73, Moose Lake, MN 55767,
plaintiff pro se
David James Jannetta, MSOP, 1111 Highway 73, Moose Lake, MN 55767,
plaintiff pro se
Jerrad William Wailand, St. Peter Regional Treatment Center, 100 Freeman
Drive, St. Peter, MN 56082, plaintiff pro se
Clarence Antonia Washington, St. Peter Regional Treatment Center, 100
Freeman Drive, St. Peter, MN 56082, plaintiff pro se
Kathryn Iverson Landrum, MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
OFFICE, 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1100, St Paul, MN 55101-2128, for
defendants.
The above matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation
of United States Magistrate Judge Katherine Menendez dated December 7, 2016. No
objections have been filed to that Report and Recommendation in the time period
permitted. Based on the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and on all
of the files, records, and proceedings herein, the Court now makes and enters the
following Order.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification
Pursuant to Rule 23 (Docket No. 8) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Dated: January 10, 2017
at Minneapolis, Minnesota
s/John R. Tunheim
JOHN R. TUNHEIM
Chief Judge
United States District Court
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?